Your taxes

[Wild Cobra]

Since so many people seem to think rich people don't pay their fair share of federal taxes, how much did you guys pay? When I take my gross pay and divide my federal income tax liability into it for 2011, I paid 13.7%

Anyone else?

[mavs>spurs]

since i'm working an entry level shit job straight out of college i'm just going to put anything over the threshhold into 401k so that i'm taxed at 15%..don't really have any dependents or anything to claim so i'm not sure how i could get it any lower than that tbh

[ElNono]

how does my taxes have anything to do with wether rich people pay their fair share or not?

Not to mention "fair" doesn't mean the same to everyone.

[Wild Cobra]

since i'm working an entry level shit job straight out of college i'm just going to put anything over the threshhold into 401k so that i'm taxed at 15%..don't really have any dependents or anything to claim so i'm not sure how i could get it any lower than that tbh
So you might end up having zero liability.

Just because you will be in the 15% marginal rate doesn't mean you will pay anything close to 15%.

[LnGrrrR]

I got money back, but due to child tax credits. I guess it's fair though that WC paid teh same percentage as Romney in taxes though. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

how does my taxes have anything to do with wether rich people pay their fair share or not?

Not to mention "fair" doesn't mean the same to everyone.
Because most families pay less that the 13% for federal income taxes that they are crying about against Romney.

Did you pay more or less?

It's simple. Just look at your gross from your last paycheck in 2011 and divide your tax liability into it. I made almost $90k last year, single, no dependents, and only paid 13.7%. Most people pay so much less, maybe not even 10%.

[Th'Pusher]

My effective federal tax rate was 17%. That does not include FICA contributions.

Mitt made ~68 times what my household income was.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, just because someone pays less than 13.7% in taxes doesn't mean they're a hypocrite if they think that millionaires should pay more. I don't think those making less than $50K per year should have high taxes, because they're already spending a great amount of their money on basics. (Not to mention that they have to pay sales tax in most cases, which is a regressive tax.)

After all, toilet paper doesn't start costing more for a millionaire, does it? Of course, you have some millionaires who do try to spend/consume up to their amounts (professional athletes come to mind), but many multi-millionaires tie it up in businesses overseas. (Free traders would argue that brings down prices for those in the states, but it doesn't mean much if you don't have a job to make money to buy those goods in the first place...)

I really see no reason that a man of Romney's income can't be paying 20% on his taxes intead of 13%. What I'd like to know, is how many people are actually paying the top percent of 35%? It seems like there's a curve, where as you make more you come closer to the top percent, but as you being to make even more, you have enough disposable income to invest/hire lawyers/etc etc to bring your tax rate down, down, down...

[ElNono]

Because most families pay less that the 13% for federal income taxes that they are crying about against Romney.

We have a progressive tax system. A person making much more is supposed to be taxed at a fairly higher percentage. Now wether you agree or not that such system is "fair" is irrelevant. That's how our tax system currently works.

What I paid in taxes is also completely irrelevant as far as what's the "fair share" that rich people should be paying.

But to entertain your question, IIRC, last year I paid ~17%...

[clambake]

business deductions and a monster cpa can save you a butt load.

[EVAY]

With zero deductions for anything other than Charitable donations, I paid 35%...and I didn't make anywhere near what Romney made. But my income was not from capital gains. It was mostly deferred comp. and pensions.

Who cares and what does it matter? I think what Romney did was legal.

I just don't think that what he paid or I paid or you paid is relevant to the question of whether or not moving the highest bracket from 35% to 39% is going to make a whit of difference in the employment rate. It might not make much of a difference in the deficit either, but at least it would help by whatever amount it could.

Just assume for a moment that someone made $1M last year, and was taxed at the 35% rate. So he paid $350,000 in taxes. Now assume the tax rate went to 39%. So next year on the same money he pays $390,000 in taxes. You think that $40,000 difference is gonna make him go out and fire somebody? I don't.

[LnGrrrR]

Evay, if I may, a quick question for you. Are you at a position where you could throw alot of your money into capital gains etc etc to reduce your tax percentage? If not, why not? If so, why not do so? Just curious, and feel free not to answer.

[scott]

2009: 18.7%
2010: 20.1%
2011: 21.8%




I really see no reason that a man of Romney's income can't be paying 20% on his taxes intead of 13%. What I'd like to know, is how many people are actually paying the top percent of 35%? It seems like there's a curve, where as you make more you come closer to the top percent, but as you being to make even more, you have enough disposable income to invest/hire lawyers/etc etc to bring your tax rate down, down, down...

Theoretically, no one should be paying 35%. That is the top incremental rate, not the top overall rate.

The fact of the matter is that every American pays the same tax rates in this country.

Mitt Romney is subject to the same marginal income tax rate on the first $10,000 of normal income as someone who works at McDonalds.

[clambake]

Evay, if I may, a quick question for you. Are you at a position where you could throw alot of your money into capital gains etc etc to reduce your tax percentage? If not, why not? If so, why not do so? Just curious, and feel free not to answer.

:lol tell me where to throw it directly into capital gains and i'm in!

[scott]

with zero deductions for anything other than charitable donations, i paid 35%...and i didn't make anywhere near what romney made. But my income was not from capital gains. It was mostly deferred comp. And pensions.

Who cares and what does it matter? I think what romney did was legal.

I just don't think that what he paid or i paid or you paid is relevant to the question of whether or not moving the highest bracket from 35% to 39% is going to make a whit of difference in the employment rate. It might not make much of a difference in the deficit either, but at least it would help by whatever amount it could.

Just assume for a moment that someone made $1m last year, and was taxed at the 35% rate. So he paid $350,000 in taxes. Now assume the tax rate went to 39%. So next year on the same money he pays $390,000 in taxes. You think that $40,000 difference is gonna make him go out and fire somebody? I don't.

+1

[EVAY]

Evay, if I may, a quick question for you. Are you at a position where you could throw alot of your money into capital gains etc etc to reduce your tax percentage? If not, why not? If so, why not do so? Just curious, and feel free not to answer.

I'm not sure I'm with you, but I think the answer is no.

My income is current, i.e., it is taxed now because I deferred it at the time I was working and earning, so it is now 'ordinary income', and thus not available for the capital gains or other lower tax rates. Same goes for my pension payments. Of course there are investments and they occasionally have gains or losses ( my tax rate in 2009 - and 2010 was lower because of the losses in the market), but basically it just is what it is.

The notion of deferring compensation is that you get matching employer monies added to it and then invested, to be taken out at a time when you are theoretically earning less than during your working years. Thing is, if you deferred a ton and the investments worked out well, you are still bringing in a fair amount even after retirement.

I don't begrudge the payments (now my spouse seriously begrudges the payments), but I don't for the same reason I don't take Social Security. I don't need it. Why take it when the country is in a bad way? Somebody else needs it more than me.


In short, I don't mind income tax,....but now Inheritance tax? That's another issue. If I have worked all my life and done well and paid my taxes, why should that money get taxed AGAIN if I die? That is just wrong to me.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'll be one happy primate if I ever duck under 20%.

[EVAY]

I got money back, but due to child tax credits. I guess it's fair though that WC paid teh same percentage as Romney in taxes though. :lol

But getting money back doesn't mean that you didn't pay income taxes. It just means that what was taken out of your paycheck was more than you owed at the end of the year, doesn't it?

So there is still some percentage that you paid in income taxes. No?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think a better question is if the Bush tax cuts were to be repealed for everyone how much would your taxes go up?

We all have a responsibility when it comes down to it and the representation/taxation thing should work both ways.

[Brazil]

I had no idea someone in this country could pay 35% income tax ?? wtf ?

I'm at 23% federal with two kids and a wife. It is almost 10 pts below what I used to pay in France or in Brazil. If there is one thing you cannot complain about in the US is tax.

[TeyshaBlue]

But getting money back doesn't mean that you didn't pay income taxes. It just means that what was taken out of your paycheck was more than you owed at the end of the year, doesn't it?

So there is still some percentage that you paid in income taxes. No?

Maybe so, maybe no. There's more than zero taxpayers that get a net credit on their returns...that is to say, they get more back than they pay in.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think a better question is if the Bush tax cuts were to be repealed for everyone how much would your taxes go up?

You know, in the end, I don't really care. Let me pay enough to help fill the fucking deficit and while we're filling it, can we please stop digging the hole?


We all have a responsibility when it comes down to it and the representation/taxation thing should work both ways.

In.

[LnGrrrR]

But getting money back doesn't mean that you didn't pay income taxes. It just means that what was taken out of your paycheck was more than you owed at the end of the year, doesn't it?

So there is still some percentage that you paid in income taxes. No?

I don't think so, but I don't have the numbers on it. I'll probably have to start paying attention now that I've opened up a Roth/IRA. :p

[LnGrrrR]

Being an enlisted person in the military, I'm not quite at the level where I have in depth knowledge of higher tax rates and how to avoid them, hence my questions. :)

[DMX7]

So you might end up having zero liability.

Just because you will be in the 15% marginal rate doesn't mean you will pay anything close to 15%.

Assuming all he has is the standard deduction, he'll probably be paying something unless he's basically working at Wal-Mart.

[mavs>spurs]

Assuming all he has is the standard deduction, he'll probably be paying something unless he's basically working at Wal-Mart.

douchebag walmart workers fall into the 10% bracket unless they're like part time kids making less than 8700 per year. 15% goes all the way up to like 35,350, so ill have to put anything over that into 401k i think you can do up to like 5-10k

[Latarian Milton]

I had no idea someone in this country could pay 35% income tax ?? wtf ?

I'm at 23% federal with two kids and a wife. It is almost 10 pts below what I used to pay in France or in Brazil. If there is one thing you cannot complain about in the US is tax.

truth bomb, maybe a good explanation as to why the US people are the richest of the world while their government has the record high debt & deficit. the problem of US taxation is the richest 1% aren't paying the amount of tax they ought to pay and that's what the rest 99% complain about most. yeah they're being taxed at a higher rate than average but that's still way too low when they have 90%+ of the total wealth

[ploto]

With zero deductions for anything other than Charitable donations, I paid 35%...and I didn't make anywhere near what Romney made.

Not possible. No one pays 35%. First, you have either really high charitable contributions or at least the standard deduction. Then, you have personal exemption(s). Then, the tax rate is incremental. So you would never pay 35% on all of it even if you had nothing deducted.

[EVAY]

Not possible. No one pays 35%. First, you have either really high charitable contributions or at least the standard deduction. Then, you have personal exemption(s). Then, the tax rate is incremental. So you would never pay 35% on all of it even if you had nothing deducted.

I am afraid that it is possible. The standard deductions and personal exemptions for two retirees with income over a certain level is de minimus with respect to the total bill due. We pay a CPA firm and they are actually pretty effective. It may have been 34.678%, but that is close enough to 35% for my purposes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You know, in the end, I don't really care. Let me pay enough to help fill the fucking deficit and while we're filling it, can we please stop digging the hole?



In.

That is kinda what i was getting at, mang.

[vy65]

Yah, if I paid under 20%, I'd be bitching and moaning about those not paying their fair share either.

It's always easy to take issue when it's not your money ...

[scott]

I am afraid that it is possible. The standard deductions and personal exemptions for two retirees with income over a certain level is de minimus with respect to the total bill due. We pay a CPA firm and they are actually pretty effective. It may have been 34.678%, but that is close enough to 35% for my purposes.

Congrats on being a multi-millionaire.

[Wild Cobra]

Not possible. No one pays 35%. First, you have either really high charitable contributions or at least the standard deduction. Then, you have personal exemption(s). Then, the tax rate is incremental. So you would never pay 35% on all of it even if you had nothing deducted.
No shit.

Those of you who are saying they pay 35% are either lying or ignorant to what you really pay.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll be one happy primate if I ever duck under 20%.
Well, you make some decent money then.

Under the 2011 tax calculations, a single person would have to make $103,538 or more before touching 20% in federal income tax. That's with no deductions other than your standard deduction and personal exemption.

[Wild Cobra]

I am afraid that it is possible. The standard deductions and personal exemptions for two retirees with income over a certain level is de minimus with respect to the total bill due. We pay a CPA firm and they are actually pretty effective. It may have been 34.678%, but that is close enough to 35% for my purposes.
Must be nice making more than $11 million per year.

[Wild Cobra]

douchebag walmart workers fall into the 10% bracket unless they're like part time kids making less than 8700 per year. 15% goes all the way up to like 35,350, so ill have to put anything over that into 401k i think you can do up to like 5-10k
Unless the rules are changed, from when I last looked, or unless you are 50+... You can only put 15% into a 401k. The maximum for under 50 is now 17,000 for 2012. It was 16,500 for 2011.

[Wild Cobra]

I got money back, but due to child tax credits. I guess it's fair though that WC paid teh same percentage as Romney in taxes though. :lol
Aren't you going to say "You're Welcome" to those of us how redistributed our wealth to your, through our Uncle Sam?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, just because someone pays less than 13.7% in taxes doesn't mean they're a hypocrite if they think that millionaires should pay more. I don't think those making less than $50K per year should have high taxes, because they're already spending a great amount of their money on basics. (Not to mention that they have to pay sales tax in most cases, which is a regressive tax.)

After all, toilet paper doesn't start costing more for a millionaire, does it? Of course, you have some millionaires who do try to spend/consume up to their amounts (professional athletes come to mind), but many multi-millionaires tie it up in businesses overseas. (Free traders would argue that brings down prices for those in the states, but it doesn't mean much if you don't have a job to make money to buy those goods in the first place...)

I really see no reason that a man of Romney's income can't be paying 20% on his taxes intead of 13%. What I'd like to know, is how many people are actually paying the top percent of 35%? It seems like there's a curve, where as you make more you come closer to the top percent, but as you being to make even more, you have enough disposable income to invest/hire lawyers/etc etc to bring your tax rate down, down, down...
Why should anyone need to pay close to 20%?

If everyone paid the same percentage, then Romney is still paying so much more into the pork system than any of us.

Why do people let the democrats play the poor against the rich. Most of it is jealousy. Much of it is ignorance, because people think they are paying more than what they really do, not understanding the tax table marginal rates.

[Wild Cobra]

We have a progressive tax system. A person making much more is supposed to be taxed at a fairly higher percentage. Now wether you agree or not that such system is "fair" is irrelevant. That's how our tax system currently works.

What I paid in taxes is also completely irrelevant as far as what's the "fair share" that rich people should be paying.

But to entertain your question, IIRC, last year I paid ~17%...
Seriously... That's a nice income you and your wife have then. At least $156k with no deductions other than your standard deduction and two personal exemptions. Retirement contributions, etc. will make your income substantially higher if you are paying 17%.

[Wild Cobra]

My effective federal tax rate was 17%. That does not include FICA contributions.

Mitt made ~68 times what my household income was.
And at 13%, he paid about 52 times more in taxes than you did.

[mavs>spurs]

Unless the rules are changed, from when I last looked, or unless you are 50+... You can only put 15% into a 401k. The maximum for under 50 is now 17,000 for 2012. It was 16,500 for 2011.

So like I was saying, If I am only making 41500 I can put 15% of that into 401k and pull my taxable amount below the threshold and avoid the tax hike to 25%.

[Wild Cobra]

So like I was saying, If I am only making 41500 I can put 15% of that into 401k and pull my taxable amount below the threshold and avoid the tax hike to 25%.
Did I misinterpret what you were saying? Sorry for that.

[mavs>spurs]

Did I misinterpret what you were saying? Sorry for that.

Point is I gotta find a way to keep my taxable amount below 35,350 to get the lower tax rate. I can achieve that hopefully by putting as much as possible into 401k for now. I just wasn't sure what the max was but you clarified that for me, thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

So like I was saying, If I am only making 41500 I can put 15% of that into 401k and pull my taxable amount below the threshold and avoid the tax hike to 25%.
If I did a quick calc correctly and assuming single/1, using the 2011 (not '12) tax tables, an income of $41,500 with 15% into a 401k would drop you to 8.3% federal tax.

With a $41,500 income, and SD+Exp of $9,500... $32k taxable stays in the 15% marginal. No 401k contribution would make it 10.5% in federal income tax.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol yeah m<s. take accounting advice from dr. napkin math there.

[Wild Cobra]

In short, I don't mind income tax,....but now Inheritance tax? That's another issue. If I have worked all my life and done well and paid my taxes, why should that money get taxed AGAIN if I die? That is just wrong to me.
I think there should be no inheritance tax. In Scott's case for example, who ever he wills his Brewpub to should he die, they would probably have to sell the place below market to pay the taxes on it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think there should be no inheritance tax. In Scott's case for example, who ever he wills his Brewpub to should he die, they would probably have to sell the place below market to pay the taxes on it.

It's called estate planning which includes life insurance should you die unexpectedly. I know in your fantasy land there would be no taxes and they would kill the poor and minorities but in the real world if you put your inheritors in that position then it's the both of you's fault.

[Wild Cobra]

It's called estate planning which includes life insurance should you die unexpectedly. I know in your fantasy land there would be no taxes and they would kill the poor and minorities but in the real world if you put your inheritors in that position then it's the both of you's fault.
So...

If someone has no dependents to need life insurance for, are you saying they should still pay for it to cover taxes?

What if they are terminally ill? How much will that insurance cost them to give a business to a grandson in a form that he doesn't lose it to taxes?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So...

If someone has no dependents to need life insurance for, are you saying they should still pay for it to cover taxes?

What if they are terminally ill? How much will that insurance cost them to give a business to a grandson in a form that he doesn't lose it to taxes?

God, you are stupid.

If you have no one that you designate heir then you will not give a fuck. If you have someone that is your heir and are not your dependent then you should plan for that.

If you get to the point where you are terminally ill and have not arranged for it before hand then it's your own fault but if you are not dead then there are ways to transfer assets such as to avoid the tax.

What do planning mean?

[Wild Cobra]

God, you are stupid.

If you have no one that you designate heir then you will not give a fuck. If you have someone that is your heir and are not your dependent then you should plan for that.

If you get to the point where you are terminally ill and have not arranged for it before hand then it's your own fault but if you are not dead then there are ways to transfer assets such as to avoid the tax.

What do planning mean?
I see you are one indoctrinated lemming...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see you are one indoctrinated lemming...

If you mean indoctrinated meaning that I have direct experience with estate planning and it's methods/benefits then you are right.

It's hilarious. You kiss wealthy peoples ass but only have the job and pay that you have due to a union and have no clue as to what the wealthy are about.

If you think estate taxes have not been on the mind of the wealthy for a long time or that they have not figured out ways to mitigate the impact then you are an idiot.

You are what you are: an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

If you mean indoctrinated meaning that I have direct experience with estate planning and it's methods/benefits then you are right.

Can everyone afford Estate Planning?


It's hilarious. You kiss wealthy peoples ass but only have the job and pay that you have due to a union and have no clue as to what the wealthy are about.

Not true.

Once again, you prove your ignorance.


If you think estate taxes have not been on the mind of the wealthy for a long time or that they have not figured out ways to mitigate the impact then you are an idiot.

Not all small business owners are wealthy, or have enough extra revenue to pay for insurances not immediately necessary.


You are what you are: an idiot.

I see you are looking in a mirror again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's called proportion.

If your business is making a lot of money then it will increases it's valuation and you will have the means and need to handle it.

If your business is not making much money then it's not going to be worth all that much.

There is an exemption you know.

If you own a business worth $5m and you don't plan for it's future should you die unexpectedly then you are one dumb mother fucker.

If you own a taco truck worth $50k then you don't have to care.

[Wild Cobra]

It's called proportion.

If your business is making a lot of money then it will increases it's valuation and you will have the means and need to handle it.

If your business is not making much money then it's not going to be worth all that much.

There is an exemption you know.

If you own a business worth $5m and you don't plan for it's future should you die unexpectedly then you are one dumb mother fucker.

If you own a taco truck worth $50k then you don't have to care.

I wonder what Scott thinks of your answer?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wonder what Scott thinks of your answer?

Scott seems like an intelligent guy. I imagine that if he has a net worth of over $1m then he has taken steps to insure his estate.

When it comes down to it i do not like discussing other people's business. Go play voyeur someplace else, flaglot.

[Wild Cobra]

Scott seems like an intelligent guy. I imagine that if he has a net worth of over $1m then he has taken steps to insure his estate.

When it comes down to it i do not like discussing other people's business. Go play voyeur someplace else, flaglot.
OMG...

You that stupid? Really?

It's not hard to accumulate a net worth of $1 million. Such a person may still be living on a limited income.

[Spurminator]

I have no idea. I don't pay attention. I've gotten accustomed to a certain amount going into my bank account every two weeks and I've learned to live and save off that.

[CosmicCowboy]

uhhhh...guys...estate/gift tax currently doesn't kick in till 5 million per person and it's portable. Meaning if the husband dies and uses 4 million of his to inherit/gift stuff the remaining 1 million passes to his wife that now has a 6 million exemption.

[ElNono]

Seriously... That's a nice income you and your wife have then. At least $156k with no deductions other than your standard deduction and two personal exemptions. Retirement contributions, etc. will make your income substantially higher if you are paying 17%.

I know we made under 100K... we have no kids yet though, so we don't get tax savings there... it's also possible I erred on the percentage, but I'm sure it was above 10%... don't feel like pulling my tax returns as it's irrelevant as to what rich people pay or not.

[EVAY]

Must be nice making more than $11 million per year.

I don't make 11M per year. What I actually make is none of your business.

You asked what taxes I paid. I'm telling the percentage rather than the amount because I don't want you to know what I make.

I have said before that I have been very lucky and blessed, and I have worked hard and saved a ton and will not apologize to anyone for my annual income or the size of my estate.

I'm not bitching about my taxes, why would anyone else be bitching about the money I worked for?

[EVAY]

No shit.

Those of you who are saying they pay 35% are either lying or ignorant to what you really pay.

Neither. gfy!

[CosmicCowboy]

We have all our assets in a revocable trust that would automatically belong to the surviving spouse without even having to go through probate. It's not that expensive. I think I paid $2500 to do the whole package...husband/wife wills, living wills, POA's for living will agents for estate and body, and the trust itself. If the estate is of any size or complexity, that is less than it would cost for an attorney to walk it through probate.

[Mikesatx]

Off on a lot of posts in here. WC was right you can't pay 35% in taxes. Our rates are mariginal which means once you cross a certain threshhold those dollars are taxed at 35%. Got to make a lot to get there and assumes no deductions. All dollars up to that point are taxed at a lower rate.

401k contributions are not limited to 15% of your income. The limit is 17k and now adjusts annually for inflation. In theory you could make 41k a year and put 17K into the plan. A much higher percentage than 15%.

Estate planning covers a lot of different areas. Tax planning is one of them. Unless your net estate is worth more than the exemption estate taxes don't apply. That exemtion is 5 mil per person. Cosmic Cowboy got this one right. The tricky thing here is that exemption amount has ranged from $0 up to its current level. Given its historical high level expect this to come down which will then catch more in the net. The average person should look into trusts for privacy purposes and if you want to get creative with how and when your assets are distributed. Living Wills and medical directives are also important and apply to everyone.

For those that are in line to pay estate, there are basically three things you can do to address it. Spend down the estate, give it away or find the most efficient way to pay for it. For those looking to incorporate number 3 life insurance is an effective way to do it.

It is crazy to me that so many of you are arguing to pay more to the government. It may not effect you directly but why not argue for the government to do a better job managing the dollars they are already get? Is there a worse manager of our money than the federal government?

[EVAY]

We have all our assets in a revocable trust that would automatically belong to the surviving spouse without even having to go through probate. It's not that expensive. I think I paid $2500 to do the whole package...husband/wife wills, living wills, POA's for living will agents for estate and body, and the trust itself. If the estate is of any size or complexity, that is less than it would cost for an attorney to walk it through probate.

Ours too.

But they are talking about changing the amount exempt (if Obama is elected - that has been discussed). Have you heard that?

There is some point at which I say "that's the kids' problem...not mine...but it really does bug me to see the likelihood of yet another layer of taxes on top of what has already been paid. I've already told my husband that I think if it gets to that point, we should start making bequests to charities in our children's names so that the estate comes under whatever limit they are suggesting.

[CosmicCowboy]

Neither. gfy!

I respectfully submit that you might want to check that 35% number as you only start to pay 35% at an adjusted gross income of $388,350. These are the 2012 tax rates. Up to that point you pay the rate indicated as you move up the brackets. (example, 10% on the first $17,400)

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350

[EVAY]

I respectfully submit that you might want to check that 35% number as you only start to pay 35% at an adjusted gross income of $388,350. These are the 2012 tax rates. Up to that point you pay the rate indicated as you move up the brackets. (example, 10% on the first $17,400)

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350

Think I need a new CPA?

[EVAY]

All of you guys with your charts...if you have no deductions ( no mortgage, no kids, nothing but charities), then you pay the max rate at each level until you get to that 35% level and then you keep paying that on every dollar after that. So as I mentioned to Ploto,
the rate may not be precisely 35 %, but it is so close as to be a distinction without a difference.

Damn...I was asked what I paid and I said it. Now I'm under attack for it.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not attacking at all. Congrats to you guys for planning well for your retirement.

[CosmicCowboy]

Although, I have to say, if I was retired and had y'alls kind of jack you sure wouldn't be seeing my happy ass posting on Spurstalk with these clowns...:lol

[Mikesatx]

All of you guys with your charts...if you have no deductions ( no mortgage, no kids, nothing but charities), then you pay the max rate at each level until you get to that 35% level and then you keep paying that on every dollar after that. So as I mentioned to Ploto,
the rate may not be precisely 35 %, but it is so close as to be a distinction without a difference.

Damn...I was asked what I paid and I said it. Now I'm under attack for it.

I don't think anyone is attacking you. It seems you are misinformed. If your income is 400k then your tax with no dedections is $116,712. That figure divided into your income is 29.18%. I would get with your Financial Advisor and set up a metting with an estate attorney. There are charitable trust structures that can help with either income and/or estate taxes. If charities aren't the direction you want to go there are other structures that may help.

[LnGrrrR]

Aren't you going to say "You're Welcome" to those of us how redistributed our wealth to your, through our Uncle Sam?

Sure. Thanks to Evay, TB, and all the others for paying my salary and taxes :lol

[mavs>spurs]

:lol yeah m<s. take accounting advice from dr. napkin math there.

i never had to take tax accounting and am just now starting my first "real job" so i wouldn't know :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Why should anyone need to pay close to 20%?

If everyone paid the same percentage, then Romney is still paying so much more into the pork system than any of us.

Why do people let the democrats play the poor against the rich. Most of it is jealousy. Much of it is ignorance, because people think they are paying more than what they really do, not understanding the tax table marginal rates.

Democrats play the poor against the rich because a) the poor need more of the money they earn than rich people do and b) the rich are able to pay far more to support society.

It'd be nice to say "No one should pay over 20%!" But that would require radical cutting on current spending, which isn't probably feasible.

[mavs>spurs]

as far as taxes go though, the fact of the matter is that a progressive system discourages you from earning more as your tax rate goes up the more you make. this creates incentives for people to find creative ways to not pay what they are supposed to in the form of offshoring and loopholes...we should patch those up and make the system slightly regressive as an incentive to make more money (add more value to society) so that they don't try to make new loopholes. we don't have a problem with the tax rates people it's more the lack of wealthy people actually paying them. the problem with raising taxes is that mitt romney can get out of them but joe shmo doesn't have that option.

[Th'Pusher]

And at 13%, he paid about 52 times more in taxes than you did.

Who give a fuck? I paid a higher percentage of my income than he did.

[ElNono]

Who give a fuck? I paid a higher percentage of my income than he did.

:cry why do you hate the rich :cry

[ploto]

All of you guys with your charts...if you have no deductions ( no mortgage, no kids, nothing but charities), then you pay the max rate at each level until you get to that 35% level and then you keep paying that on every dollar after that. So as I mentioned to Ploto,
the rate may not be precisely 35 %, but it is so close as to be a distinction without a difference.

Damn...I was asked what I paid and I said it. Now I'm under attack for it.

We are simply pointing out that what you claimed is incorrect - unless you make literally millions of dollars a year. Do the math.

If you made 1 million dollars in regular income and took the standard deduction and 2 exemptions, then your income tax would still be only at 31.6% of the one million (about $316,000).

You also said that you take the charitable contribution deduction - which means that you would have to be giving more to charity than the amount of the standard deduction -- so your tax rate would be even lower than what I calculated.

You are attempting to represent the rate at which you pay to be at a higher level than is probably true, so why would you expect people not to question that?

[boutons_deux]

"a progressive system discourages you from earning more as your tax rate goes up"

any evidence to support your opinion?

[mavs>spurs]

common sense. why earn more if they're just going to tax you harder? is a disincentive.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

common sense. why earn more if they're just going to tax you harder? is a disincentive.
Not really. Everyone's goal is to maximize after tax wealth and earning more accomplishes that.

Anyone who believes this bullshit doesn't have the slightest clue how America's tax code works.

[mavs>spurs]

surely in econ you've learned that the labor curve is backward bending..meaning that just because YOU personally would continue to work your ass off and earn as much as humanly possibly regardless, most people have a point where after they make a certain amount of money they actually want to work less. higher marginal rates lower this number for people, after a certain point people would rather just stop working.

[mavs>spurs]

you get diminishing returns on each hour worked after your tax rate starts to hike up is what i'm saying, and at some point it becomes attractive to just not work any more.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I haven't had an econ professor who believes in the Mitt Romney trickle down theories (and yes, the idea that a regressive tax code will help the economy is trickle down economics whether or not you wanna admit it) you believe in, so no I haven't learned whatever you just said.

I'm curious why taxes, as a percentage of GDP, are lower than they've been since the the 1950s and it hasn't had the effect Republicans say low taxes have. How historically low do taxes need to be before they have this magical effect?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

you get diminishing returns on each hour worked after your tax rate starts to hike up is what i'm saying, and at some point it becomes attractive to just not work any more.
When do people reach that point?

Be specific.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The idea that people deliberately chose to make less money because they don't wanna pay taxes is pretty hilarious and it's alarming how many people actually believe it when it doesn't apply to them :lol

[mavs>spurs]

I haven't had an econ professor who believes in the Mitt Romney trickle down theories (and yes, the idea that a regressive tax code will help the economy is trickle down economics whether or not you wanna admit it) you believe in, so no I haven't learned whatever you just said.

I'm curious why taxes, as a percentage of GDP, are lower than they've been since the the 1950s and it hasn't had the effect Republicans say low taxes have. How historically low do taxes need to be before they have this magical effect?

Lol what I'm saying isn't trickle down economics, it may be included in that whole theory but the slightly regressive tax code I'm suggesting isn't anything that radical.

And what we're seeing right now isn't the effect of lower taxes in a vacuum, these things take time and our economy is fucked for a multitude of reasons. It was fucked before lower taxes, the only thing that's changed is time.

[mavs>spurs]

The idea that people deliberately chose to make less money because they don't wanna pay taxes is pretty hilarious and it's alarming how many people actually believe it when it doesn't apply to them :lol

The labor supply curve actually is backwards bending, that number where marginal returns start to diminish is different for each person but after a certain amount of wealth people would rather stop working and have more leisure time.

Everyone has this point whether you realize it or not, higher taxes on more income just lowers that number for everyone.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So the Bush tax cuts need time to take effect :lol

When are they gonna take effect and turn our economy around?

[mavs>spurs]

Now you're just not being intellectually honest. Where did I say that lower taxes would turn this mess around? We have a lot bigger problems right now than taxes.

[Th'Pusher]

Lol what I'm saying isn't trickle down economics, it may be included in that whole theory but the slightly regressive tax code I'm suggesting isn't anything that radical.

And what we're seeing right now isn't the effect of lower taxes in a vacuum, these things take time and our economy is fucked for a multitude of reasons. It was fucked before lower taxes, the only thing that's changed is time.

You might be the stupidest person in the world with a degree in finance. Congrats :toast

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The labor supply curve actually is backwards bending, that number where marginal returns start to diminish is different for each person but after a certain amount of wealth people would rather stop working and have more leisure time.

Everyone has this point whether you realize it or not, higher taxes on more income just lowers that number for everyone.
I'm willing to bet this wasn't a part of whatever econ class you learned about the labor supply curve in. It was just something you/Mitt Romney made up.

[mavs>spurs]

Tbh I took classes at Harvard with Mitt Romney

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Now you're just not being intellectually honest. Where did I say that lower taxes would turn this mess around? We have a lot bigger problems right now than taxes.
The rich are paying lower taxes right now than anytime since the 1950s. I'm curious how much incentive needs to be provided to be rich.

[mavs>spurs]

You might be the stupidest person in the world with a degree in finance. Congrats :toast

nah there is nothing wrong with what i said. our economy is flawed, we don't actually produce anything anymore and we fund everything through a deficit. taxes have very little to do with what's going on today.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Well Bush's tax cuts are a big contributor to our deficit.

[mavs>spurs]

even without tax cuts we'd still be running a huge deficit, it would just take slightly more time to fall off the cliff but in the end it would still be the same result. blaming it all on tax cuts is a really short sighted and dumb approach to looking at it.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I wasn't blaming it all on tax cuts. That's a strawman. I was just saying Bush's tax cuts were a significant contributor, which they were. His war in Iraq was also a big contributor, and Romney's war in Iran would be as well.

[mavs>spurs]

if we're going to fix the economy it's not going to come through high taxes, first we've got to find a way to combat this outsourcing and actually produce something in this country. we've got to find a way to slice the budget and stop living above our means. all the taxes in the world won't fund this welfare state and world policing we've got going on.

[mavs>spurs]

His war in Iraq was also a big contributor, and Romney's war in Iran would be as well.

yeah agreed on that big time

i'd actually go on the record to say that a war in iran would be the straw that broke the camels back, aka america's downfall from world dominance.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

America is never gonna be the manufacturing power house it was. Reagan and Clinton took our outsourcing beyond the point of no return. Low skill labor jobs are never gonna be the backbone of our economy again. I used to think we needed to bring those jobs home but it's never gonna happen.

The only way we fix the economy is investing in education and innovation. Obama wanted to slice the budget and also raise taxes by a slight amount and the level-headed Republicans in congress wanted to as well, but the tea party threw a tantrum and made sure it wouldn't happen.

[mavs>spurs]

The only way we fix the economy is investing in education and innovation.

lol good luck with that. you know as well as i do that the average american has serious mental deficiencies and iq's have been dropping over the past 60 years since it's been measured.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/

we aren't ever going to be innovative again unless we start importing our brains from abroad at an even higher pace than we do and somehow keep them from returning back home.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

These tings are why we need to legalize drugs and get back to letting Darwinism run its course. Neutering welfare recipients also helps because it accelerates Darwinism.

[mavs>spurs]

also, investing in education =! getting smarter. countries with much smaller budgets than ours outperform the hell out of us in standardized testing. hell, little impoverished kids in the pakistani mountains going to school in a shack are better at math and science than our kids.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And that's because of the no child left behind act that made the focus of public schools be teaching kids to analyze gay stories about a girl named Naomi who took a vacation one summer and met a group of people on the beach who save wales. When I say invest in education I also mean completely overhaul the fucked education system this country has.

[mavs>spurs]

yeah but where we differ is that i have a hard time believing that things just got this way on accident. somebody somewhere doesn't want the average american to be smart and empowered and it's just not going to happen. you can't fail that miserably on accident..they've been steadily dismantling education and attacking our brains via the food and water for some time. ya'll keep drinking that fluoride and eating the mercury though, i'm sure guys like Th'pusher who like to insult without ever adding anything of value will save the day for Team Amurrrica tbh.

[LnGrrrR]

also, investing in education =! getting smarter. countries with much smaller budgets than ours outperform the hell out of us in standardized testing. hell, little impoverished kids in the pakistani mountains going to school in a shack are better at math and science than our kids.

Not really. When you look a the scores of American kids from middle-class and higher schools, our scores are comparable. It's when you add in all the scores from the kids in lower class areas that our average gets dragged down.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

dumbing America down was a key objective of the Bush administration....hence the No Child Left Behind Act.

[mavs>spurs]

Not really. When you look a the scores of American kids from middle-class and higher schools, our scores are comparable. It's when you add in all the scores from the kids in lower class areas that our average gets dragged down.

Ummm hi lngrrr welcome back, it's the year 2012 and you just described about 75% of the kids in public schools in that "lower class." Did you know kids starve in america? true story.

But but when you look at the minority of kids in private school, they're not all THAT dumb!!!

[LnGrrrR]

Ummm hi lngrrr welcome back, it's the year 2012 and you just described about 75% of the kids in public schools in that "lower class." Did you know kids starve in america? true story.

But but when you look at the minority of kids in private school, they're not all THAT dumb!!!

I'm not sure if the number is as high as 75%, but you do make a good point. How should we help out those lower income families then? I don't think regressive taxation would do the trick.

[mavs>spurs]

education reform will have to start at the cultural/societal level. until kids WANT to learn and value learning, no amount of spending in the world is going to turn it around.

[Wild Cobra]

I know we made under 100K... we have no kids yet though, so we don't get tax savings there... it's also possible I erred on the percentage, but I'm sure it was above 10%... don't feel like pulling my tax returns as it's irrelevant as to what rich people pay or not.
Most of you here are making my point. You all think you pay more percentage-wise than you do. The left is real good at this hate mongering.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't make 11M per year. What I actually make is none of your business.

Then you don't pay as much as you claimed in federal income tax. It would take $11 million to pay as much of a percentage as you claimed.


You asked what taxes I paid. I'm telling the percentage rather than the amount because I don't want you to know what I make.

And it is wrong.


I have said before that I have been very lucky and blessed, and I have worked hard and saved a ton and will not apologize to anyone for my annual income or the size of my estate.

I'm glad for you. Don't think I'm trying to diminish anything.


I'm not bitching about my taxes, why would anyone else be bitching about the money I worked for?

I agree. They shouldn't.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't remember what recent year I plotted this for, but with no deductions other than the Standard Deduction and Personal Exemptions, here are the percentages up to $400k:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXpercent-50pct.jpg

Considering I bought this computer and Microsoft Office 2007, June '10, it is no older than the 2009 rates.

[Wild Cobra]

uhhhh...guys...estate/gift tax currently doesn't kick in till 5 million per person and it's portable. Meaning if the husband dies and uses 4 million of his to inherit/gift stuff the remaining 1 million passes to his wife that now has a 6 million exemption.
I know the laws keep changing here in recent years. I also know liberals want to reinstate the high estate tax penalties on lower values of net wealth. Good to know it's at $5 million. Thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

Considering I bought this computer and Microsoft Office 2007, June '10, it is no older than the 2009 rates.
I looked at the file. These are 2010 rates. Maybe I'll take the time to update it for 2012 rates, and extend it past $400k.

[Latarian Milton]

I wasn't blaming it all on tax cuts. That's a strawman. I was just saying Bush's tax cuts were a significant contributor, which they were. His war in Iraq was also a big contributor, and Romney's war in Iran would be as well.

tax cuts might boost the economy in a short time but it should've never been applied to the richest 1% who've been paying WAY BELOW the rate they should have, just notice that France is gonna make the richest 1% people pay taxes at a rate that can possibly reach up to 75%!!! :wow

[CosmicCowboy]

The rich are paying lower taxes right now than anytime since the 1950s. I'm curious how much incentive needs to be provided to be rich.

You are comparing apples and bananas. Nobody paid those high stated rates back in the day because there were a million deductions and a thousand ways to shelter income from taxes. The stated rate is lower now but those deductions and tax shelters are gone too.

[CosmicCowboy]

tax cuts might boost the economy in a short time but it should've never been applied to the richest 1% who've been paying WAY BELOW the rate they should have, just notice that France is gonna make the richest 1% people pay taxes at a rate that can possibly reach up to 75%!!! :wow

Yep, and they are moving out of the country.

[Latarian Milton]

yeah but where we differ is that i have a hard time believing that things just got this way on accident. somebody somewhere doesn't want the average american to be smart and empowered and it's just not going to happen. you can't fail that miserably on accident..they've been steadily dismantling education and attacking our brains via the food and water for some time. ya'll keep drinking that fluoride and eating the mercury though, i'm sure guys like Th'pusher who like to insult without ever adding anything of value will save the day for Team Amurrrica tbh.
america still has the world's finest universities but there're too many exotic elements especially in the top-tier schools which's the problem, like UCLA that already has a yellows majority. however it doesn't mean american kids are not as smart as foreigners, it's that we've lost too many talented kids in the grassroot levels where the kids get bored of learning due to the tedious courses, and have to import brains to make up for the loss, and get fucked when these foreign motherfuckers end up returning home with the technologies stolen from america.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, I paid 12.36% if you just count income tax. Throw in SS and Medicare and it's 17.82% I'm pretty aggressive, though.

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, I paid 12.36% if you just count income tax. Throw in SS and Medicare and it's 17.82% I'm pretty aggressive, though.
Interesting. I figured you were self employed meaning you would pay both ends of SS and medicare.

What is it? 4.2% SS, 1.45% medicare, but an additional 6.2% and 1.45% for the employer end?

[CosmicCowboy]

Interesting. I figured you were self employed meaning you would pay both ends of SS and medicare.

What is it? 4.2% SS, 1.45% medicare, but an additional 6.2% and 1.45% for the employer end?

I didn't count that. My company is a C corp.

[ElNono]

Most of you here are making my point. You all think you pay more percentage-wise than you do.

I know I would swap my place with the guy earning 1M+ and paying 35% tax in a heartbeat... not to mention the one earning multi-million and paying 15%-20% tax on that...:lol

If that was your point, sure...

[ElNono]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXpercent-50pct.jpg

This chart is bullshit. The minimum tax rate schedule is 10%. If you have $1 in taxable income (after deductions and exceptions), the minimum percentage you're paying is 10%.

CC got it right in the schedule he posted (all categories here (http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Income-Taxes/qt/Tax-Rates-For-The-2011-Tax-Year.htm))

[Mikesatx]

This chart is bullshit. The minimum tax rate schedule is 10%. If you have $1 in taxable income (after deductions and exceptions), the minimum percentage you're paying is 10%.

CC got it right in the schedule he posted (all categories here (http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Income-Taxes/qt/Tax-Rates-For-The-2011-Tax-Year.htm))


Read the top of the original post from WC. It accounts for standard deduction and personal exemption.

[ElNono]

Read the top of the original post from WC. It accounts for standard deduction and personal exemption.

I did read it. I still call bullshit. Even if it's plotting the effective tax rate after deductions and exceptions, with the current schedule, there's no tax rate (effective or otherwise) under 10%.

As I said earlier, even if you have $1 in taxable income, the minimum rate is 10% under the current tax rate schedule.

[ElNono]

Basically, there should be no curves between 0% and 10%... only Cobra knows what else he got wrong...

[ElNono]

Example: Looking at the graph, you would think a married couple filing jointly with earnings of $50,000 would be paying 4% tax rate. There's no such thing. If after deduction and exceptions they still have taxable income, they'll be taxed, at the very least, 10%, which is the very first tax bracket on the schedule.

[Mikesatx]

I think you are arguing different things. You are correct to say that when a dollar is taxed it has to be at a minimum of 10%. At first read, and after looking at the chart again I took it to mean when you factor standard deduction and personal exemption and nothing else and then divide that taxes due into gross income you get the effective tax rate. You factor all the deductions in and the graph would start in negative territory for the folks that get more back than they pay in.

[ElNono]

I think you are arguing different things. You are correct to say that when a dollar is taxed it has to be at a minimum of 10%. At first read, and after looking at the chart again I took it to mean when you factor standard deduction and personal exemption and nothing else and then divide that taxes due into gross income you get the effective tax rate. You factor all the deductions in and the graph would start in negative territory for the folks that get more back than they pay in.

I see what he tried to do there now. :lol

That's neither "tax rate" or what's known as "effective tax rate" (which is calculated using the actual taxable amount). An effective tax rate calculation also can never be below 10% (if you're paying taxes, you're paying at least 10% of the taxable income, if you go over more than one bracket, then you can calculate the effective tax rate depending the amounts and percentages you paid on each bracket).

So at least we know WC is talking apples and oranges. No surprises there.

[ElNono]

BTW, the numbers look bogus too...

Married filing jointly with gross $50,000 using 2012 numbers (http://www.irs.gov/uac/In-2012,-Many-Tax-Benefits-Increase-Due-to-Inflation-Adjustments):

Personal exception: 2x $3,800 = $7,600
Standard deduction: $11,900
Taxable: $50,000 - $7,600 - $11,900 = $30,500

$17,000 taxable at 10% = $1,700
$13,500 taxable at 15% = $2,025

Total tax: $3,725
Effective tax rate: 12%

Percentage of tax over gross: ($3,725 / $50,000) * 100 = 7.45%

On the graph is ~4%...

[ploto]

So at least we know WC is talking apples and oranges. No surprises there.

Here was the original question:

When I take my gross pay and divide my federal income tax liability into it for 2011, I paid 13.7%

Anyone else?

This was the initial question. What percent of your gross earnings goes to federal income tax.

[ElNono]

Here was the original question:

When I take my gross pay and divide my federal income tax liability into it for 2011, I paid 13.7%

Anyone else?

This was the initial question. What percent of your gross earnings goes to federal income tax.

The thread started with a discussion of "tax rates", which normally is not that measure. I did miss your post though.

All that said, apparently that chart is bogus regardless.

[CosmicCowboy]

I see what he tried to do there now. :lol

That's neither "tax rate" or what's known as "effective tax rate" (which is calculated using the actual taxable amount). An effective tax rate calculation also can never be below 10% (if you're paying taxes, you're paying at least 10% of the taxable income, if you go over more than one bracket, then you can calculate the effective tax rate depending the amounts and percentages you paid on each bracket).

So at least we know WC is talking apples and oranges. No surprises there.

Sure it can. Throw the EITC in there and all bets are off on percentages.

[ElNono]

Sure it can. Throw the EITC in there and all bets are off on percentages.

The EITC will either make you a non-payer or reduce your taxable amount. Whatever is left is still taxed at 10% or more, which is your tax rate.

But this also highlights the worhtlessness of such graphs. Deductions are far from the same for different people, and credits like the EITC can throw some of that out too.

[Mikesatx]

The EITC will either make you a non-payer or reduce your taxable amount. Whatever is left is still taxed at 10% or more, which is your tax rate.

But this also highlights the worhtlessness of such graphs. Deductions are far from the same for different people, and credits like the EITC can throw some of that out too.

As it pertains to this argument and the argument that is being made against Romney is the taxes he paid relative to his income for a given year. This makes the tax rate irrelevant. So if we focus on that what becomes the fair rate?

The beauty of all this bullshit is the government has their citizens fighting amongst themselves on what we should pay. And a significant portion is arguing for others to pay more. The true argument should be what is the government doing with the dollars they receive. At the end of the day raising taxes on the top 1% or even those making more than 250k a year is fine. But if that isn't enough do we come back and raise it again? Then again? At what point do we redirect the light to our government and their complete ineptitude to manage the money we give them?

[ploto]

The EITC will either make you a non-payer or reduce your taxable amount. Whatever is left is still taxed at 10% or more, which is your tax rate..

Actually the EITC does not reduce your taxable income - it directly reduces your tax liability after you have already calculated the tax you owe. It even turns into a refund if the tax credit is for more than the tax you owe.

[ElNono]

As it pertains to this argument and the argument that is being made against Romney is the taxes he paid relative to his income for a given year. This makes the tax rate irrelevant. So if we focus on that what becomes the fair rate?

Well, when it comes to Romney, the alleged issue is that he "only" paid circa 20% for income in the million dollars, whereas the bracket for such income would be at a higher percentage (unless his earnings were mostly through capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate), and that he used offshore accounts and loopholes to pay less (which, let's be frank, happens and is done by more than just Mitt Romney).

The reality is that Mitt is likely not doing anything illegal, and he didn't write the loopholes either. Good for him that he can afford the accounting people that let him keep more of his money.


The beauty of all this bullshit is the government has their citizens fighting amongst themselves on what we should pay. And a significant portion is arguing for others to pay more. The true argument should be what is the government doing with the dollars they receive. At the end of the day raising taxes on the top 1% or even those making more than 250k a year is fine. But if that isn't enough do we come back and raise it again? Then again? At what point do we redirect the light to our government and their complete ineptitude to manage the money we give them?

While I agree there's wasteful spending, the big dilemma has always been what to cut. The reality is that the MIC doesn't want the military contracts cut, the population in general doesn't want SS or Medicare to be cut (as seen in this and previous election, that's a sure recipe for political suicide). Every Congressman is trying to earmark stuff and bring more water to their state.

And so we arrive that even if we made a modicum of cuts on some of this stuff, it would likely not be enough to close the gap on the deficit anyways.
I agree with CC that there should be some cuts, and there should probably be some tax increases. Only on the rich? I don't know. Something to debate.

But this whole thing is much more complicated in general than "class warfare!" or "the rich need to pay more!". There's the loopholes, the tax system itself which is a mess, the current high volume of baby boomers overloading Medicare/SS, the warmongering, which isn't free. It's all interwinded one way or another. We just get the bill every year.

[ElNono]

Actually the EITC does not reduce your taxable income - it directly reduces your tax liability after you have already calculated the tax you owe. It even turns into a refund if the tax credit is for more than the tax you owe.

Taxable income = AGI = After deductions and exceptions. The EITC is applied against that. If after applying the tax credit your taxable income is 0 or negative (you're getting money back), your tax rate is effectively 0% (you fall outside of any of the tax rate schedule brackets). If it's still positive, you pay 10% or more.

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, the numbers look bogus too...

Married filing jointly with gross $50,000 using 2012 numbers (http://www.irs.gov/uac/In-2012,-Many-Tax-Benefits-Increase-Due-to-Inflation-Adjustments):

Personal exception: 2x $3,800 = $7,600
Standard deduction: $11,900
Taxable: $50,000 - $7,600 - $11,900 = $30,500

$17,000 taxable at 10% = $1,700
$13,500 taxable at 15% = $2,025

Total tax: $3,725
Effective tax rate: 12%

Percentage of tax over gross: ($3,725 / $50,000) * 100 = 7.45%

On the graph is ~4%...

Maybe you need glasses?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXpercent-50pctadd.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

I did read it. I still call bullshit. Even if it's plotting the effective tax rate after deductions and exceptions, with the current schedule, there's no tax rate (effective or otherwise) under 10%.

As I said earlier, even if you have $1 in taxable income, the minimum rate is 10% under the current tax rate schedule.
Stop stretching in trying to find fault in me. It not only shows poor character on your part, but proves you to be a partisan hack. Mike and Ploto very clearly pointed out the facts, yet you still stretch to find fault.

Pathetic...

[ploto]

Taxable income = AGI = After deductions and exceptions. The EITC is applied against that.

No. EITC is just that, a credit. It is not applied to reduce your taxable income. After you calculate your taxable income and calculate the tax you owe on that, then you start deducting your tax credits such as EITC directly from your tax liability. For example, if you qualify for a $2000 EITC, it does not reduce your taxable income by $2000; it reduces your tax liability by $2000. If your tax liability is less than $2000, then you even get the extra back as a refund.

[ElNono]

Maybe you need glasses?

Oops. I probably do. I take back the numbers are bogus.


Stop stretching in trying to find fault in me.

Nah, I didn't know what those percentages were. Too small for actual tax rates.


No. EITC is just that, a credit. It is not applied to reduce your taxable income. After you calculate your taxable income and calculate the tax you owe on that, then you start deducting your tax credits such as EITC directly from your tax liability. For example, if you qualify for a $2000 EITC, it does not reduce your taxable income by $2000; it reduces your tax liability by $2000. If your tax liability is less than $2000, then you even get the extra back as a refund.

Okay, I see what you mean. Your tax rate though is whatever was calculated to apply to your taxable income.

[Mikesatx]

Well, when it comes to Romney, the alleged issue is that he "only" paid circa 20% for income in the million dollars, whereas the bracket for such income would be at a higher percentage (unless his earnings were mostly through capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate), and that he used offshore accounts and loopholes to pay less (which, let's be frank, happens and is done by more than just Mitt Romney).

The reality is that Mitt is likely not doing anything illegal, and he didn't write the loopholes either. Good for him that he can afford the accounting people that let him keep more of his money.



While I agree there's wasteful spending, the big dilemma has always been what to cut. The reality is that the MIC doesn't want the military contracts cut, the population in general doesn't want SS or Medicare to be cut (as seen in this and previous election, that's a sure recipe for political suicide). Every Congressman is trying to earmark stuff and bring more water to their state.

And so we arrive that even if we made a modicum of cuts on some of this stuff, it would likely not be enough to close the gap on the deficit anyways.
I agree with CC that there should be some cuts, and there should probably be some tax increases. Only on the rich? I don't know. Something to debate.

But this whole thing is much more complicated in general than "class warfare!" or "the rich need to pay more!". There's the loopholes, the tax system itself which is a mess, the current high volume of baby boomers overloading Medicare/SS, the warmongering, which isn't free. It's all interwinded one way or another. We just get the bill every year.


Given the direction this election seems to be going it is time the Republicans comprimise. Something they should have done 2 years ago. I think with the results of the midterms they were emboldened to stand their ground with the hope of winning the senate and presidency. Our government has done too little for too long. My hope is more accountability is given to how these tax dollars are being spent. If I was a betting man, when the republicans start to change their image from obstructionist more people will start to listen and investigate their message.

[ElNono]

Given the direction this election seems to be going it is time the Republicans comprimise. Something they should have done 2 years ago. I think with the results of the midterms they were emboldened to stand their ground with the hope of winning the senate and presidency. Our government has done too little for too long. My hope is more accountability is given to how these tax dollars are being spent. If I was a betting man, when the republicans start to change their image from obstructionist more people will start to listen and investigate their message.

IMO, the GOP is going through some internal tensions, but it will pass. With a little less radical message/platform, I think they would've taken this election fairly easily.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't. The Republican party can't win the election because they continue to offer nothing other than trickle down economics and bible thumping. Interntal tension plays a role in why they can't win but their shitty ideas are the bigger reason why.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

uhhhh...guys...estate/gift tax currently doesn't kick in till 5 million per person and it's portable. Meaning if the husband dies and uses 4 million of his to inherit/gift stuff the remaining 1 million passes to his wife that now has a 6 million exemption.

The law passed in 2008 to make it $5m from $3.5m expires at the end of the year to become $1m in 2013.

It's not talked about. It's done.

[Wild Cobra]

Okay, I see what you mean. Your tax rate though is whatever was calculated to apply to your taxable income.

First of all, I was never calling this a tax rate. Again, I will ask you to refrain from creating fault in what I say. It makes you look like an ass. I specifically stated federal tax liability divided into gross pay. I did not say adjusted gross. The only place I say "tax rate" is when I presented the graph, saying I took it from the "tax rates."

ElNono...

You are trying to change the argument. Just admit you were in error and discuss this.

I am trying to get people to see the real percentage of taxes they pay from their income. Not a position on a piece of paper.

[Th'Pusher]

I am trying to get people to see the real percentage of taxes they pay from their income. Not a position on a piece of paper.

For the most part, the people who have responded have a pretty good grasp on the effective tax rate they are paying and most pay a higher effective tax rate than Mitt Romney. Great point!

[ElNono]

Again, I will ask you to refrain from creating fault in what I say.

I said you were right and I was not. Not sure what you want. A pencil and paper apology?

[ElNono]

I am trying to get people to see the real percentage of taxes they pay from their income. Not a position on a piece of paper.

What do you mean "real" percentages? Some things are simply non-taxable, thus they simply don't belong in the taxable category and as such they're not part of the tax rate.

Not all income is taxable, that's why using gross to talk about "what's taxed" is silly.

An honest conversation about tax rates would discuss taxable income and brackets, since that would already exclude any deductions or exceptions (which are not the same for everyone).

[Wild Cobra]

Some things are simply non-taxable
No shit Sherlock, yet they are a part of our income. Gross may not be important to you, but it is important to get a true sense of taxes paid.

[ElNono]

Out of my taxable income, I have a "true sense" (whatever that's supposed to mean) of what my taxes were.

You started this thread on a rant about how some people bitch about how much rich people get taxed.

If you want to have an adult conversation about tax rates, you should probably start by figuring out what's called a "tax rate" and what those percentages are.

After I posted what my actual tax rate was, you followed up with some stupid comment on how much I was supposed to be making, which was completely incorrect, seeing you're talking something completely different from actual tax rates.

[Latarian Milton]

No shit Sherlock, yet they are a part of our income. Gross may not be important to you, but it is important to get a true sense of taxes paid.
donations are also from your income but they're never considered the tax your pay, hence are never counted in the tax rate imho. romney gives up nearly 50% of his annual income in the forms of donation and tax, but tax only accounts to 15%

[Wild Cobra]

After I posted what my actual tax rate was, you followed up with some stupid comment on how much I was supposed to be making, which was completely incorrect, seeing you're talking something completely different from actual tax rates.
Because I was specifically saying in the OP, percentage of gross.

Romney's taxes he paid are a percentage of his gross. Not his tax rate.

[ElNono]

Because I was specifically saying in the OP, percentage of gross.

Romney's taxes he paid are a percentage of his gross. Not his tax rate.

Romney is a good example why gross over tax is pretty irrelevant. Dude paid 14% on $21 million gross. In order to do that he had to apply mammoth deductions.

Looking at your chart, I would expect him to be paying in the 20% range.

Romney also had a good chunk coming from capital gains, which are taxed lower and basically don't show on that chart.

Mitt didn't write the tax code though, so it isn't really his fault he's paying what he is.

[Wild Cobra]

Most of his earnings were paid as Capital gains I bet, and probably at the 10% rate. He also had huge write-offs, like much of his tithing.

Do you understand the difference between an income tax rates and capital gains rates?

If so, 'nuff said.

[ElNono]

Do you understand the difference between an income tax rates and capital gains rates?


Romney also had a good chunk coming from capital gains, which are taxed lower

More reason why the comparisons are irrelevant.

IMO, capital gains should be taxed just like regular income.

[Wild Cobra]

More reason why the comparisons are irrelevant.

IMO, capital gains should be taxed just like regular income.
No.

That's exactly why you must compare from gross income. Not taxable income.

[ElNono]

No.

No what?


That's exactly why you must compare from gross income. Not taxable income.

That makes no sense.

Non-taxable income pays no taxes. Capitals gains is indeed taxable income, just with a separate, specific rate.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm just over here shaking my head at how hard headed you are.

Income is income. You would complain if the wealthy got all income that was not taxable now, wouldn't you.

When comparing how much a person contributs percentage wise of their income, you need to take all their taxes paid and divide it into all their income.

According your reasoning then, the poor would no longer have reason to complain about the wealthy's taxes, if the wealthy paid no taxes then. Right?

[ElNono]

:sleep

If I cared what you thought, I would ask. I don't care.

[Wild Cobra]

I know.

You don't give a shit about the truth.

You are just a partisan hack.

[ElNono]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

What party does my posts in this thread tell you I'm carrying water for, counselor?

lol opinion = truth

[LnGrrrR]

So, and again please forgive my ignorance in advance, but capital gains could be from stocks that say, benefited other-than-American workers/businesses/etc etc, correct? For instance, say I put $10M into stock for a company based out of, I don't know, India, I would pay the capital gains rate on those taxes?

[Wild Cobra]

So, and again please forgive my ignorance in advance, but capital gains could be from stocks that say, benefited other-than-American workers/businesses/etc etc, correct? For instance, say I put $10M into stock for a company based out of, I don't know, India, I would pay the capital gains rate on those taxes?
I don't know. I would be guessing on the details.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

What party does my posts in this thread tell you I'm carrying water for, counselor?

lol opinion = truth
Libtards

[ElNono]

So, and again please forgive my ignorance in advance, but capital gains could be from stocks that say, benefited other-than-American workers/businesses/etc etc, correct? For instance, say I put $10M into stock for a company based out of, I don't know, India, I would pay the capital gains rate on those taxes?

I believe so. IIRC, the only difference is that if the stock is traded on a foreign exchange, you would put that as capital gains under your world-wide income.

[ElNono]

Libtards

Please explain. I've been saying Mitt did nothing wrong all along.

[Wild Cobra]

Please explain. I've been saying Mitt did nothing wrong all along.
My mistake.

You're still a libtard.

[ElNono]

My mistake.

So you were wrong or just lying?

[LnGrrrR]

I believe so. IIRC, the only difference is that if the stock is traded on a foreign exchange, you would put that as capital gains under your world-wide income.

If that is the case, why the heck are we reducing taxation on that? :lol I could see reducing taxes if it went to Americans (even though most American corps probably outsource anyways.)

I wouldn't mind lowered taxes on capital gains if those funds were supporting American businesses/workers.

[Wild Cobra]

I wouldn't mind lowered taxes on capital gains if those funds were supporting American businesses/workers.
I think unless we are going to change from a production bases tax system like we have to a consumption based tax system, that capital gains are about right for traditional capital investment. I would however, advocate a 35% rate or higher on daytrading. I would suggest the the low rates we have should only be for tangible investments, and long term holding.

[ElNono]

If that is the case, why the heck are we reducing taxation on that? :lol I could see reducing taxes if it went to Americans (even though most American corps probably outsource anyways.)

I wouldn't mind lowered taxes on capital gains if those funds were supporting American businesses/workers.

What I'd like to know is how much of all these capital gains are coming from actual long term investments vs very short-term (algorithmic or otherwise). In other words, how many come from actual investing vs just fast-paced trading.

The latter might make good money for some people, but it really does little for companies.

[Wild Cobra]

So you were wrong or just lying?
No. My mistake was thinking you were against the rates Mitt paid.

[ElNono]

No. My mistake was thinking you were against the rates Mitt paid.

Ok, so you were just wrong. :tu

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, so you were just wrong. :tu
Yes. If you are not against what he paid, then I was wrong.

At least I can admit a mistake. It would be nice if you could too.

[ElNono]

I did admit a mistake. In this very thread.

Nice, uh?

[Wild Cobra]

I did admit a mistake. In this very thread.

Nice, uh?
A simple mistake that I gave you an understandable out for. What about in that other thread? 1/3rd the oxygen? Really now. I was going to leave it alone, but I really don't understand your hard hardheadedness on that. The number of oxygen molecules in the same volume is about 70% as much at 10,000 ft as it is a sea level. Not 33% as much.

[boutons_deux]

Tax Cuts for the Super-Rich


Step by step, the tax code was altered to appease and aid the super-rich. First, marginal tax rates were dramatically reduced on the top brackets, falling from a post-war high of 91 percent in the 1950s to 35 percent today. But the biggest giveaway was cutting the capital gains rate to 15 percent. Since most of the super-rich receive their income in the form of capital gains, this was like winning the lottery, each and every year. That’s how Mitt Romney could pay only 13 to 14 percent on his enormous income. As this chart shows, the tax bite is fading away for the super-rich.



http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/taxes.png






Financial Deregulation


Both parties tripped over themselves to assist Wall Street by dismantling nearly all of the critical New Deal financial curbs. Until deregulation, Wall Street was a boring place to work with incomes nearly identical to those with similar education in other sectors. After deregulation it became a gold mine (see chart below). Anti-trust actions to break up big banks no longer occurred. Glass-Steagall (which separated speculative banking from commercial banking) was gutted. Too-big-to-fail casinos flourished (until they crashed) along with ever rising incomes for financiers.



http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/financial_non.png

The $Ts are piled up in the pockets of the 1% (and especially off-shore and untaxed, reducing their effective tax rate on their gross closrer to zero) from reducing capital gains to 15% (St Ronnie was really a 1% asshole, conning people with his professional actor's voice)

The impoverishment of the 99% and the enrichment of the 1% are conservative/Repug policies, not "natural law" of economics, combined with financial and health-care vampire-squid sectors sucking the 99% dry.

[Wild Cobra]

Blah blah blah blah blah...
What that doesn't say is what the bottom 4 quintiles got for tax breaks. My effective tax rate dropped by more than 5% also. How about yours?

[Th'Pusher]

What that doesn't say is what the bottom 4 quintiles got for tax breaks. My effective tax rate dropped by more than 5% also. How about yours?

And what has happened to the national debt over that same period of time?

[Wild Cobra]

And what has happened to the national debt over that same period of time?
It went up. However, the tax rates probably didn't make a difference. Between our jobs being outsourced, and endless government spending, the debt will continue to increase no matter how much we tax people.

[Th'Pusher]

It went up. However, the tax rates probably didn't make a difference. Between our jobs being outsourced, and endless government spending, the debt will continue to increase no matter how much we tax people.

Well okay then. If you don't believe there is a direct relationship between tax rates and the federal debt, I guess there really is nothing else to discuss.

[Wild Cobra]

Well okay then. If you don't believe there is a direct relationship between tax rates and the federal debt, I guess there really is nothing else to discuss.
There is a complex relationship between taxes and revenue. Debt is the accumulation of annual deficits. We run a deficit when we spend more than we take in.

Reducing taxes can either increase or decrease revenues. It depends on which side of the Laffer Curve we are on. More taxes means less money people have to keep the economy going, which means less of an economy to tax. If the percentage of economic decrease is greater than the tax increase, then increasing taxes actually generates less revenue. Not more.

[ElNono]

A simple mistake that I gave you an understandable out for.

You "gave me an out"? :lmao

I made a mistake and admitted it. Your permission was never required to do so, counselor.


What about in that other thread? 1/3rd the oxygen?

That's not what I said. That's probably why other posters laughed in your face over there. They got it, you didn't.
I gave you enough time in that thread and you still don't get it. You've gone past my allotted time for idiots, so I've moved on.

[Wild Cobra]

That's not what I said.
Yes ity is. Not only did you say that there was 1/3rd the oxygen in the same volume at 10,000 ft as there is a sea level, but you provided your support as a link that gave blood oxygen levels. Not atmospheric oxygen levels.

Why are you so hard headed?

[Th'Pusher]

There is a complex relationship between taxes and revenue. Debt is the accumulation of annual deficits. We run a deficit when we spend more than we take in.

Reducing taxes can either increase or decrease revenues. It depends on which side of the Laffer Curve we are on. More taxes means less money people have to keep the economy going, which means less of an economy to tax. If the percentage of economic decrease is greater than the tax increase, then increasing taxes actually generates less revenue. Not more.

No need to explain the Laffer curve. I think we just disagree on which side of the curve we are on.

[boutons_deux]

"Reducing taxes can either increase or decrease revenues."

bullshit, and proven so by every serious economist. Tax cuts never pay for themselves.

[ElNono]

Yes ity is. Not only did you say that there was 1/3rd the oxygen in the same volume at 10,000 ft as there is a sea level, but you provided your support as a link that gave blood oxygen levels. Not atmospheric oxygen levels.

A) I never said there's "1/3 the oxygen in the same volume". Already asked you for a quote and showed you to be wrong on this claim.
B) I actually said there's 21% oxygen level at any altitude
C) You're still confusing "levels" vs "pressure"
D) You're not worth my time explaining where you're going wrong. Figure it out on your own.

[Wild Cobra]

A) I never said there's "1/3 the oxygen in the same volume". Already asked you for a quote and showed you to be wrong on this claim.

What do you call this?


Not to mention that the oxygen pressure (the amount of oxygen molecules) in the same air volume at 10,000 ft is about 1/3 of sea-level.


B) I actually said there's 21% oxygen level at any altitude

Yes, that is true up to about 80 km.


C) You're still confusing "levels" vs "pressure"

No I'm not. "Sea level" is considered 0 ft. You are confused by your assumptions.


D) You're not worth my time explaining where you're going wrong. Figure it out on your own.

Bullshit. It's because you cannot explain it. You compounded your error with the blood gas levels, and you just are too hard headed to admit it.

Do you agree that there is about 70% as much oxygen at 10,000 ft as there is at sea level?

[ElNono]

So, what I said:

Not to mention that the oxygen pressure (the amount of oxygen molecules) in the same air volume at 10,000 ft is about 1/3 of sea-level.

What Wild Cobra got from that:

you say that there was 1/3rd the oxygen in the same volume at 10,000 ft as there is a sea level

:lmao

Next time just quote me, so there's no misunderstandings. You're on your own as far as figuring out what's the difference between what I said vs what you got from it.
I already tried to explain to you what the difference is and you just keep on yapping. School's out.

[Wild Cobra]

So, what I said:


What Wild Cobra got from that:


:lmao

Next time just quote me, so there's no misunderstandings. You're on your own as far as figuring out what's the difference between what I said vs what you got from it.
I already tried to explain to you what the difference is and you just keep on yapping. School's out.
I do understand partial pressures. It is obvious you do not, especially since you used the 7.2 kPa for 10,000 ft.

You said:

At 10,000 feet the oxygen pressure drops to 7.2 kPa, which is roughly one third of the pressure at sea level.

From here

The 1/3 coming from 7.2 kPA being about one-third of 19.6 kPA...
Your numbers are wrong.

Buy a clue.

[ElNono]

I already tried to explain to you what the difference is and you just keep on yapping. School's out.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

My God, you are stupid.

Your 7.2 number is wrong. That is all there is to it. I

Atmospheric pressure at sea level = 101 kPa

Atmospheric pressure at 10,000 ft = 71 kPa

Partial pressure of oxygen at sea level is 21.21 kPa (0.21 x 101)

Partial pressure of oxygen at 10,000 ft is 14.91 kPa (0.21 x 71)

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/partialO210000.jpg

[ElNono]

http://psx-scene.com/forums/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

We went 3 pages and many hours last time on this. I'm not doing it again.

Let me put it clearly one last time:

1) There's absolutely nothing wrong with that I said
2) If you're going to continue with this, please quote me instead of flat out lying about what I said. Happened twice already.
3) Feel free to disagree. Other posters seemingly had no problem understanding what I was saying.
4) I don't particularly care how butthurt you're about this topic. That's entirely on you.

[Wild Cobra]

Your 7.2 number is wrong.

Period.

It should be 14.9 kPa, not 7.2 kPa.

[ElNono]

I disagree.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

I can't believe y'all are still arguing about this...:lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

I can't believe y'all are still arguing about this...:lol
Yes, I'm guilty of getting multiple laughs that ElNoKnow cannot understand.

[ElNono]

I can't believe y'all are still arguing about this...:lol

He can't let go. :lol

He's been obsessed since the other thread. Notice who brought this up in this thread :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

He can't let go. :lol

He's been obsessed since the other thread. Notice who brought this up in this thread :lmao
Not true.

It's just you stopped responding there.

I cannot believe that you believe the partial oxygen pressure is 7.2 kPa at 10,0000 ft.

It isn't! You seem incompetent at parsing data.

[ElNono]

Not true.

Why are you lying again? Did you bring up the other thread's topic into this one, yes or no?


It's just you stopped responding there.

So, since you're still obsessed with the topic, you decided to bring it up here.

I told you in the other thread I'm done with the topic. I don't really care how butthurt you are about it, tbh. That's on you.

[Wild Cobra]

I told you in the other thread I'm done with the topic.
Apparently not since you keep responding.

You laid out the path of your 1/3rd, and I proved you wrong. Instead of having the integrity to say you made a mistake, you keep saying I am wrong instead. Are you stupid to the facts, or too ashamed to admit that error?

[ElNono]

Why are you lying again? Did you bring up the other thread's topic into this one, yes or no?

[CosmicCowboy]

http://static.sportressofblogitude.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/cat-fight.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

http://straightrazorplace.com/attachments/shaving-safety-razors/95228d1334849771-feather-blades-arrived-hijack-car.jpg

[ElNono]

^ Exactly

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Hijacking my own thread?